Comments for China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China

Comment on Official announcement of the FCBA Bench and Bar Program in Beijing by Luckie

Luckie — Thu, 10 May 2012 04:22:03 +0000

It’s really a historic event. Congratulations Mark !

Comment on Official announcement of the FCBA Bench and Bar Program in Beijing by SIPO announces Annual Strategy and Plans of Implementation for Intellectual Property in 2012 « China IPR – Intellectual Property Developments in China

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:14:02 +0000

[...] be a key element of the forthcoming Federal Circuit Bar Association/China law Society program in May 2012, with the cooperation of China’s Supreme People’s Court, the CAFC and [...]

Comment on “Case Filing” In China’s Courts and Their Impact on IP Cases by chinaipr2

chinaipr2 — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:43:10 +0000

Xin He, from City University of Hong Kong recently posted another paper on the topic of Adjudication Committees on SSRN:

Xin He, Black Hole of Responsibility: The Adjudication Committee’s Role in the Chinese Court, Law and Society Review (2011), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038216.

Comment on “Case Filing” In China’s Courts and Their Impact on IP Cases by China’s Court Gatekeepers | China Hearsay

China’s Court Gatekeepers | China Hearsay — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:53:19 +0000

[...] Don Clarke’s post gets you going, proceed to China IPR Blog and read what Mark Cohen has to say about the effect of the system on IP case intake. Finally, wrap [...]

Comment on “Case Filing” In China’s Courts and Their Impact on IP Cases by China litigation/Civil procedure

China litigation/Civil procedure — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:15:48 +0000

[...] Cohen, ““Case Filing” In China’s Courts and Their Impact on IP Cases,” China IPR blog, March 24, [...]

Comment on Explosive Litigation Growth Continues in IP in China by “Case Filing” In China’s Courts and Their Impact on IP Cases « China IPR – Intellectual Property Developments in China

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:13:00 +0000

[...] critical when evidence is ephemeral, such as in the on-line environment. Considering the rapidincrease of civil copyright cases, the high incidence of on-line copyright cases in China today, as well as [...]

Comment on Explosive Litigation Growth Continues in IP in China by mimaginem

mimaginem — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:48:44 +0000

Interesting. What about damages awarded averagely in 2011? Are there figures for that? I read on an INTA 2011 report it was about 46 thousand Euro. Has this figured changed a lot by the end of 2011? And by the way, any news about the EU-Commission-based (CHN Delegation) anti counterfeit tool called Acris?

Comment on Events by Marcus Van Ameringen Vice President

Marcus Van Ameringen Vice President — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:42:23 +0000

A useful resource thankyou.

Comment on Apple and Michael Jordan draws interest in Chinese Trademark Law by mimaginem

mimaginem — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:15:42 +0000

I have read the linked article and am reminded of the SHANZHAI phenomena that “officially” took off in China some time ago now. It envisages lots of positive factors not taken into consideration such as Chinese’ intrinsec creativity. There are at least two reasons for Shanzhai: laziness of the Chinese coming up with something in taking action in pursuing TM protection for their names and/or utility models and, moreover, a free-riding inclination. The latter is a pathology only indicative of these decades (and not only in China): little effort, max results (profit).
But back to the linked article: aside from Prof. Cohen’s truths, from my personal viewpoint there is a rising tendency in filing descriptive names and that is a pity. Contradiction! Descriptiveness seems nowadays where creativity is mostly no longer a talent but a profitable necessity. For example: the “PAD” is by definition a soft material, like a thin pillow and ALSO a writing pad. Long before the iPad. I guess what I want to stress it that Apple should drop the i-product saga.

Comment on The Proview and Apple Controversy – An Increasingly Tangled Web by mimaginem

mimaginem — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:59:03 +0000

Magnificent post. Unfortunately long by necessity, it explains, however, point by point what there is to know. Further details will emerge by the hour I presume. Even Harris at ChinaLawBlog did not have a clear view on most issues and had to make the best from assumptions. It strikes me that a big company like Apple, in this specific case, is reportedly mistaking a company with which it made business (ie, confusing two <> companies.. how is that possible?). And from the IP perspective: hard to also believe that Apple had forgotten (?!) to specify negotiations for Mainland China distribution with that name.